Destroying freeways

[Slick Vik]

The city of Vancouver is about to destroy two viaducts and Syracuse is seriously considering destroy I-81. Is this the wave of the future? Freeways have been known to destroy neighborhoods (Bronx comes to mind) and stand as a psychological barrier.

[IHB2]

The city of Vancouver is about to destroy two viaducts and Syracuse is seriously considering destroy I-81. Is this the wave of the future? Freeways have been known to destroy neighborhoods (Bronx comes to mind) and stand as a psychological barrier.

Southwest Freeway destroyed cohesive neighborhoods between the UPRR tracks and Montrose, and the City of Bellaire was irreparably split by 610 and has never recovered a sense of unity of the 2 sides of the freeway (I both grew up in Bellaire and lived there as an adult between 1948 and 2002 and the change in the community in the 60s with the construction of 610 was jarring)

[Slick Vik]

Southwest Freeway destroyed cohesive neighborhoods between the UPRR tracks and Montrose, and the City of Bellaire was irreparably split by 610 and has never recovered a sense of unity of the 2 sides of the freeway (I both grew up in Bellaire and lived there as an adult between 1948 and 2002 and the change in the community in the 60s with the construction of 610 was jarring)

This happened in nearly every major city in the country it seems like. I found a collection of interesting links on the subject.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/a-green-lesson-from-the-worlds-most-romantic-cities/73319/

http://timothyblee.com/2010/07/22/the-anti-urban-20th-century/

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/apr/26/freeway-lids-hold-hope-reconnecting-neighborhoods/

http://mapscroll.blogspot.com/2009/02/freeway-dreams-failed-efforts-to.html

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/13716/freeway-construction-brought-neighborhood-destruction/

http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures

http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2012/04/cnu-20-urban-freeways-devastation-and-opportunity

http://www.thecorkbarandgrill.com/about-the-cork-history.html

http://csudigitalhumanities.org/exhibits/exhibits/show/interstate-highways/highway-act-of-1956/neighborhoods-destroyed

http://metrospokane.typepad.com/photos/east_central/pv0002.html

[mfastx]

I think a big reason downtown Houston seems to be "dead" at all non-working hours is due to the fact that there are freeways surrounding it, cutting it off from surrounding neighborhoods.

I think a good solution would be to bury some of those freeways, especially I-45. Now, that would cost billions of dollars and all, but I think it would be a good investment. It would really improve the city and make the area a better place to live. Much like what happened in Boston with the "Big Dig" project.

[Slick Vik]

Other places weren't so fortunate; in Houston, among many other cities, an inner ring was built around the central business district, coincidentally enough running right through some of the city's most historic black neighborhoods. Funny how that always seemed to happen with these freeway plans. Though even some minority neighborhoods mounted successful efforts to fight off the highwaymen, even in Houston itself, where the Harrisburg Freeway, which would have bisected the city's mostly Hispanic East End was scuttled. And the campaign in Washington, DC that spawned this announcement was also a success:

[Pleak]

I think a big reason downtown Houston seems to be "dead" at all non-working hours is due to the fact that there are freeways surrounding it, cutting it off from surrounding neighborhoods.

I think a good solution would be to bury some of those freeways, especially I-45. Now, that would cost billions of dollars and all, but I think it would be a good investment. It would really improve the city and make the area a better place to live. Much like what happened in Boston with the "Big Dig" project.

Not sure if using one of the biggest cock-ups of a construction project in recent history (massive overruns in both time and expense - makes Metro look highly efficient) is actually going to help out your arguement. Once again - cost DOES matter in analyzing the sorts of projects. What would be the actual quantifiable return on the billions invested to sink I-45? I pretty sure your rail dreams could all come true for less than that cost.

[IHB2]

I think a big reason downtown Houston seems to be "dead" at all non-working hours is due to the fact that there are freeways surrounding it, cutting it off from surrounding neighborhoods.

I think a good solution would be to bury some of those freeways, especially I-45. Now, that would cost billions of dollars and all, but I think it would be a good investment. It would really improve the city and make the area a better place to live. Much like what happened in Boston with the "Big Dig" project.

seems to me that all of the freeways surrounding downtown excepting maybe a small section of 10 are either elevated - 45, 59, some of 10, or below ground - 59.

the problem with the CBD is Houston opted for as many tall glass towers as possible in the 70s, and then when a functional downtown nightlife and the beginnings of residential living began in the 90s the city govt and METRO tore up every damn street for several years.

[mfastx]

Not sure if using one of the biggest cock-ups of a construction project in recent history (massive overruns in both time and expense - makes Metro look highly efficient) is actually going to help out your arguement. Once again - cost DOES matter in analyzing the sorts of projects. What would be the actual quantifiable return on the billions invested to sink I-45? I pretty sure your rail dreams could all come true for less than that cost.

I was suggesting the idea of the Big Dig, not the implementation. And yeah, give $15 billion to METRO and they could build rail lines, BRT lines, commuter lines.. the works. Hell, give METRO the 4 billion that's going to be used to re-do 290 to build the proposed light rail lines and public transit in Houston would increase dramatically in no time.

seems to me that all of the freeways surrounding downtown excepting maybe a small section of 10 are either elevated - 45, 59, some of 10, or below ground - 59.

Right, but they are still act as a barrier to neighborhoods connecting downtown. You can't deny that. People just don't like walking under freeways and accross parking lots to get somewhere.

the problem with the CBD is Houston opted for as many tall glass towers as possible in the 70s, and then when a functional downtown nightlife and the beginnings of residential living began in the 90s the city govt and METRO tore up every damn street for several years.

Nah, there's been major construction in lot's of other great lively cities, the construction isn't it. I think it's a combination of the car culture in Houston, the fact that only a small number of people live downtown, and all of the parking lots surrounding downtown. This creates a "dead" vibe and discourages people from walking around.

Edited July 25, 2012 by mfastx

[samagon]

Houston just isn't built for people to see a NEED to live in downtown, so they don't.

If other towns were built the same way as Houston, they'd also not live downtown.

What are some examples of other towns that are of a relative similar age as Houston, and have similar geographical expanses, they're all sprawling, for their size comparatively. Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando (could go on), no one gives a crap about downtown living in those cities either.

[gto250us]

Atlanta has a similar population as Houston? They only have about 450,000 living there.

Orlando has a similar population as Houston? Thye only have about 250,000 living there.

Houston has 2-3 Million, by the way.

[Slick Vik]

Houston just isn't built for people to see a NEED to live in downtown, so they don't.

If other towns were built the same way as Houston, they'd also not live downtown.

What are some examples of other towns that are of a relative similar age as Houston, and have similar geographical expanses, they're all sprawling, for their size comparatively. Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando (could go on), no one gives a crap about downtown living in those cities either.

Have you been to downtown Atlanta or uptown Dallas?

[JLWM8609]

What are some examples of other towns that are of a relative similar age as Houston, and have similar geographical expanses, they're all sprawling, for their size comparatively. Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando (could go on), no one gives a crap about downtown living in those cities either.

Chicago was established the same year Houston was, is pretty much flat like Houston, and their metro area (Chicagoland) is sprawling. They may not have low density sprawl like we do, but Chicagoland takes up about 11,000 sq mi, while the Houston metro area encompasses about 10,000 sq mi. Do people there have concern for living downtown?

[Slick Vik]

Chicago was established the same year Houston was, is pretty much flat like Houston, and their metro area (Chicagoland) is sprawling. They may not have low density sprawl like we do, but Chicagoland takes up about 11,000 sq mi, while the Houston metro area encompasses about 10,000 sq mi. Do people there have concern for living downtown?

Yes

[IronTiger]

Part of the problem that people don't seem to take into account is that some of the freeways that were removed were practically unchanged since the 1960s and 1970s and were woefully out of date to begin with, and usually redundant (in almost every case, the freeway was never terribly busy, and the nearby roadways and highways were reconfigured for better traffic). Houston invested has too much into its freeways (I-10, US-59) to make it really worthwhile. New Orleans, on the other hand, could benefit from freeway removal.

Syracuse won't even do a study of I-81 for another five years, the result will take even longer. Having New York state's biggest shopping mall (think on par with The Galleria in terms of square footage) won't help that either.

[Houston19514]

Chicago was established the same year Houston was, is pretty much flat like Houston, and their metro area (Chicagoland) is sprawling. They may not have low density sprawl like we do, but Chicagoland takes up about 11,000 sq mi, while the Houston metro area encompasses about 10,000 sq mi. Do people there have concern for living downtown?

Yes, they do. Huge numbers live downtown. BUT, pretending that Chicago and Houston have similar development patterns because they were established the same year is disingenuous. The fact is, Chicago had its boom years very early in its history and became a major city in the pre-war (i.e., pre-auto-dominated) period. Totally different history and development pattern.

[Houston19514]

duplicate post. Sorry

Edited July 26, 2012 by Houston19514

[JLWM8609]

Yes, they do. Huge numbers live downtown. BUT, pretending that Chicago and Houston have similar development patterns because they were established the same year is disingenuous.

I didn't suggest that Chicago and Houston have similar development patterns because they were established in the same year. Samagon just asked for cities of a "relative similar age" and "similar geographical expanses" as an example. Chicago fits the bill for those two criteria.

[TonyM]

coincidentally enough running right through some of the city's most historic black neighborhoods. Funny how that always seemed to happen with these freeway plans.

What does that have to do with anything? Did you ever think that maybe those "historic black neighborhoods" also had some of the historically cheapest land values? Thus enabling far cheaper ROW acquisition? It's got nothing to do with race, it's got everything to do with the desired routing of the freeway and how cheap it'll be for the state to buy the land. Cheaper ROW will pretty much dictate the route of the freeway.

Right, but they are still act as a barrier to neighborhoods connecting downtown. You can't deny that. People just don't like walking under freeways and accross parking lots to get somewhere.

I don't think so. I live in midtown and walking to downtown is no big deal, I do it plenty . . . when there's a reason to. Fact is that without going all the way to Bayou Place/Pavilions/Flying Saucer/Stadiums there's NOTHING to do in between. The few restaurants down near Allen Center and the like are all closed in the evening and on weekends. Couple that with the fact that a cab ride is $5-6, I just take a cab to where I actually WANT to go in downtown, no reason to walk. The freeway doesn't pose much of a "barrier" at all.

Now, is it ugly and does the Pierce elevated collect a bunch of trash and vagrants under it? Yes.

[mfastx]

I don't think so. I live in midtown and walking to downtown is no big deal, I do it plenty . . . when there's a reason to. Fact is that without going all the way to Bayou Place/Pavilions/Flying Saucer/Stadiums there's NOTHING to do in between. The few restaurants down near Allen Center and the like are all closed in the evening and on weekends. Couple that with the fact that a cab ride is $5-6, I just take a cab to where I actually WANT to go in downtown, no reason to walk. The freeway doesn't pose much of a "barrier" at all.

Now, is it ugly and does the Pierce elevated collect a bunch of trash and vagrants under it? Yes.

It is certainly doable. I think one of the main factors is that there is literally nothing surrounding the freeways downtown. All of the establishments and restaurants are in central downtown away from freeways. I think having a freeway right there decreases the desirability of the land, which discourages development.

[Slick Vik]

What does that have to do with anything? Did you ever think that maybe those "historic black neighborhoods" also had some of the historically cheapest land values? Thus enabling far cheaper ROW acquisition? It's got nothing to do with race, it's got everything to do with the desired routing of the freeway and how cheap it'll be for the state to buy the land. Cheaper ROW will pretty much dictate the route of the freeway.

I don't think so. I live in midtown and walking to downtown is no big deal, I do it plenty . . . when there's a reason to. Fact is that without going all the way to Bayou Place/Pavilions/Flying Saucer/Stadiums there's NOTHING to do in between. The few restaurants down near Allen Center and the like are all closed in the evening and on weekends. Couple that with the fact that a cab ride is $5-6, I just take a cab to where I actually WANT to go in downtown, no reason to walk. The freeway doesn't pose much of a "barrier" at all.

Now, is it ugly and does the Pierce elevated collect a bunch of trash and vagrants under it? Yes.

What about the Eisenhower Expressway destroying Little Italy? Many times plans were made to destroy thriving neighborhoods. West Adams in LA is another example.

[Pleak]

One other thing to point out. Some of the biggest promoters on here of destroying elevated freeways also want elevated rail and complained to no end about the fact that Metro put in surface rail that has to stop at every light. I just think that is very interesting - because the end result would be exactly the same. An ugly structure that divides whatever neighborhood it traverses. But because one is a form of transportation that meets their agenda, it is acceptable while the other is not.

[mfastx]

One other thing to point out. Some of the biggest promoters on here of destroying elevated freeways also want elevated rail and complained to no end about the fact that Metro put in surface rail that has to stop at every light. I just think that is very interesting - because the end result would be exactly the same. An ugly structure that divides whatever neighborhood it traverses. But because one is a form of transportation that meets their agenda, it is acceptable while the other is not.

Haha, you might have a point there. I, for one, think that in the downtown area rail should be in a subway. Outside of the downtown area, it can be elevated or whatever, but I agree on that point.

[samagon]

Atlanta has a similar population as Houston? They only have about 450,000 living there.

Orlando has a similar population as Houston? Thye only have about 250,000 living there.

Houston has 2-3 Million, by the way.

Are there any cities in the USA with our unique features that have the same population?

I'm very aware of Houston's pop vs those other cities, I was looking for geographical references, not population. when you add population, and when the city was developed, Houston is solely unique, and the way it was developed lends to my point even better anyway. There's an exceedingly limited set of the population who's going to choose to live downtown when it's so much easier to live outside of the downtown area and put up with the inconveniences that come with that (that probably outweigh the inconveniences associated with living downtown anyway). Most people who want to live close to the core have found midtown, montrose, the heights and they're finding the east side now too. why live downtown again?

Have you been to downtown Atlanta or uptown Dallas?

downtown dallas, not in a while, but are there more people living in their CBD than ours? downtown atlanta, never been there, but is it really more livable than ours?

Chicago was established the same year Houston was, is pretty much flat like Houston, and their metro area (Chicagoland) is sprawling. They may not have low density sprawl like we do, but Chicagoland takes up about 11,000 sq mi, while the Houston metro area encompasses about 10,000 sq mi. Do people there have concern for living downtown?

don't forget there's that big lake that forces all construction to go west, Houston gets to build 360 degrees out from the CBD, Chicago gets 180 degrees.

[MaxConcrete]

Is this the wave of the future?

No, it is not the wave of the future. There may be a few freeway removals in the future that will be hyped by anti-freeway interests, but the removals will remain rare events.

Anti-freeway interests over-publicized the very few freeway removals which have occurred in the United States and always neglect to mention that ALL existing removals were due to special circumstances and ALL were dead-end freeways (making them non-critical from a transportation perspective).

Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco: a dead-end freeway, damaged by 1989 earthquake

Central Freeway in San Francisco: a dead-end freeway, damaged by 1989 earthquake, very short section removed

West Side Freeway in New York City: a dead end freeway, was crumbling and needed rebuilding or demolition (removed in 1970s)

Park East Freeway in Milwaukee: a 1-mile-long dead end freeway due to the cancelation of its connecting segment. Removed in 2003

Harbor Drive Freeway in Portland: a dead-end freeway, became obsolete when nearby interstates were completed, closed 1974

That averages out to about 1 freeway removal every decade. We will probably see something similar in the following decades, or we could see less. This is not a wave of the future, it is just a consequence of natural disasters, plans gone awry and facility obsolescence.

[Slick Vik]

The reason for tearing out superfluous intra-city highways is simple, it's profitable to do so for city, citizen, and investor alike. The genesis arose with a simple understanding of a complex issue, downtown revitalization, which very few of the downtown efforts actually address: that land prices are too high and demand is too low. The equation is upside down and therefore, various forms of subsidy are required to make any deal work. It's simply too expensive for the city to keep up on every single parcel.

To return the development market to stable, healthy normalcy, we have to reverse the equation, increase demand (by removing a freeway) and drop the cost of land (by flooding the market with public right-of-way). Yes, it's another form of subsidy, semantics, but one in concert within the logical order cities were built and sustained over time, the public side provides the infrastructure (integration), the market responds with built space (accommodation).

[livincinco]

No, it is not the wave of the future. There may be a few freeway removals in the future that will be hyped by anti-freeway interests, but the removals will remain rare events.

Anti-freeway interests over-publicized the very few freeway removals which have occurred in the United States and always neglect to mention that ALL existing removals were due to special circumstances and ALL were dead-end freeways (making them non-critical from a transportation perspective).

Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco: a dead-end freeway, damaged by 1989 earthquake

Central Freeway in San Francisco: a dead-end freeway, damaged by 1989 earthquake, very short section removed

West Side Freeway in New York City: a dead end freeway, was crumbling and needed rebuilding or demolition (removed in 1970s)

Park East Freeway in Milwaukee: a 1-mile-long dead end freeway due to the cancelation of its connecting segment. Removed in 2003

Harbor Drive Freeway in Portland: a dead-end freeway, became obsolete when nearby interstates were completed, closed 1974

That averages out to about 1 freeway removal every decade. We will probably see something similar in the following decades, or we could see less. This is not a wave of the future, it is just a consequence of natural disasters, plans gone awry and facility obsolescence.

 

When a city removes a freeway that is a clear sign that all freeways in that city need to be removed.  A perfect analogy to this is that Starbucks closed 600 stores back in 2008 because of over-expansion.   That immediately led to the closure of all of their stores and their subsequent bankruptcy.

[Slick Vik]

When a city removes a freeway that is a clear sign that all freeways in that city need to be removed. A perfect analogy to this is that Starbucks closed 600 stores back in 2008 because of over-expansion. That immediately led to the closure of all of their stores and their subsequent bankruptcy.

I'm not saying that, I'm willing to compromise and say it should be removed from downtown areas.

[Ross]

I'm not saying that, I'm willing to compromise and say it should be removed from downtown areas.

 

So, where is the money going to come from to remove the freeways? And, more importantly, where is the money going to come from to build the bypass roads to carry the intercity traffic that use the removed roads? If you remove I-10 through town, the traffic has to go somewhere. I also have to ask how I am going to take my family to Galveston without the freeways. Currently, we get on I-10 at TC Jester, then get on 45 near Downtown. With your proposal, what is currently an hour trip will become a 3 hour trip as we fight the traffic through town.

 

Honestly, removing non-deadend freeways at this point has to be one of the least rational proposals I've ever seen.

[Trae]

So, where is the money going to come from to remove the freeways? And, more importantly, where is the money going to come from to build the bypass roads to carry the intercity traffic that use the removed roads? If you remove I-10 through town, the traffic has to go somewhere. I also have to ask how I am going to take my family to Galveston without the freeways. Curreintly, we get on I-10 at TC Jester, then get on 45 near Downtown. With your proposal, what is currently an hour trip will become a 3 hour trip as we fight the traffic through town.

Honestly, removing non-deadend freeways at this point has to be one of the least rational proposals I've ever seen.

Don't think he is saying remove all freeways. Just those around downtown. I think it would be nice if 45 was demolished and you routed that traffic onto 10/59. Then you could open up the west side of Downtown.

[RedScare]

The reason for tearing out superfluous intra-city highways is simple, it's profitable to do so for city, citizen, and investor alike. The genesis arose with a simple understanding of a complex issue, downtown revitalization, which very few of the downtown efforts actually address: that land prices are too high and demand is too low. The equation is upside down and therefore, various forms of subsidy are required to make any deal work. It's simply too expensive for the city to keep up on every single parcel.

To return the development market to stable, healthy normalcy, we have to reverse the equation, increase demand (by removing a freeway) and drop the cost of land (by flooding the market with public right-of-way). Yes, it's another form of subsidy, semantics, but one in concert within the logical order cities were built and sustained over time, the public side provides the infrastructure (integration), the market responds with built space (accommodation).

 

When you were in school (assuming you've been to school), were you ever taught about the utter and blatant dishonesty of plagiarism? Do you even know what plagiarism is? I just googled your post as is did not sound like your style of writing. It is word for word as this blog post...

 

http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2012/06/providence-195-tear-out-to-torn-out.html

 

I can understand not having the time or inclination to research these issues yourself. However, blatantly stealing the work product of others, as you have done at least a half dozen times over the last couple of days, is plagiarism, and dishonest. The preferred method is a small excerpt, followed by the link.

 

I know that you do not trust me, so I invite you to PM the editor or Subdude and ask what the forum thinks of plagiarists. Certainly, I ask that you give credit where it is due.